4 ms·

Journalists generally avoid asking for classified information. The belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publ

by jjmarr 2y ago

Journalists generally avoid asking for classified information. The belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Julian Assange actively solicited leaks of information. That's where the espionage claim comes from. There's not much precedent on this though and making a plea deal avoids establishing one. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Generally, precedent is established when someone appeals their conviction, and a higher court determines that the conviction is lawful. Higher court decisions bind lower courts, so e.g. if a circuit appeals court says the law is "X", every district court within it has to agree. Since generally, you wouldn't appeal a plea deal, there probably won't be legal precedent from this. That being said, I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" the next time a similar situation comes up.

llm_trw 2y ago
The short answer: making a plea deal avoids establishing one.
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
> I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" I can't imagine we haven't been saying that since the day Assange set foot inside the Ecuadorian embassy.
- jfengel 2y ago
  I sure can't imagine anyone thinking "I'll get off scot free, just like Assange".
boomboomsubban 2y ago
>belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Even if you think Assange did more than this, this plea deal is very clearly over passively receiving classified information. The precedent information is good to hear, thank you.
slg 2y ago
>Julian Assange actively solicited leaks of information. This phrasing makes it sound like Assange asked "Do you have this?" when the accusations have always been closer to "Can you get me this? Here is how you could go about doing that." That takes it out of the realm of journalism in at least the legal sense.
- lokar 2y ago
  When you encourage someone else to commit a crime, and then use the results of that crime in your own work you really should not be surprised that law enforcement comes after you.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    The work was not for profit and in the public interest. Did he actively encourage people to do things they didn't want to do, or did people actively seek the necessary advice from him? Would Assange's problems been solved a single cut out? "I can't answer that but I can put you in touch with people who can."
    - vkou 2y ago
      > The work was not for profit and in the public interest. Any bit of classified information can be reasonably considered in the interest of someone in the public. Public interest can only mitigate the illegality of what you're doing, it doesn't just magically make the act illegal. > Did he actively encourage people to do things they didn't want to do, or did people actively seek the necessary advice from him? False dichotomy. If you want to rob a bank, and you come and ask me to be the getaway driver, we're both going to hang. It doesn't matter who had the idea for the crime, what matters is that he materially assisted in carrying it out. Now, if you robbed a bank, and just dropped a million dollars on my porch, that would be a different story. That's the defense journalists use when they receive illegally obtained information.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > If you want to rob a bank, and you come and ask me to be the getaway driver, we're both going to hang. It doesn't matter who had the idea for the crime, what matters is that he materially assisted in carrying it out. Flawed analogy. He didn't help them rob the bank. They asked "what is a good way to get away from a bank robbery." He answered "here are some ideas that have worked in past bank robberies." And it's not a false dichotomy. The law considers mens rea to be a very important factor. The law isn't a black and white application of imputed standards to our social order. You can tell this because we allow juries to decide what happens in them.
zgcarter 2y ago
There is a precedent from the Pentagon Papers: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/new-york-times-co-v-united-states/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/new-york-times-co-v-... As the last paragraph points out, not a clear victory for the free press, but the Assange prosecutors know this case very well and you are absolutely right that they want to avoid another one.
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
Hopefully the next Wikileaks will have better OPSEC and will be completely out of reach from ALL governments
- mdhb 2y ago
  If he went back to even thinking about touching classified material again in the future he would deserve to be jailed just for the stupidity of it alone after this. The takeaway here isn’t “better opsec”.
  - alfiedotwtf 2y ago
    So you’re for or against the First Amendment?
    - mdhb 2y ago
      For reading comprehension

by jjmarr 2y ago

llm_trw 2y ago

The short answer: making a plea deal avoids establishing one.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago

> I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" I can't imagine we haven't been saying that since the day Assange set foot inside the Ecuadorian embassy.

jfengel 2y ago
I sure can't imagine anyone thinking "I'll get off scot free, just like Assange".

boomboomsubban 2y ago

>belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Even if you think Assange did more than this, this plea deal is very clearly over passively receiving classified information. The precedent information is good to hear, thank you.

slg 2y ago

>Julian Assange actively solicited leaks of information. This phrasing makes it sound like Assange asked "Do you have this?" when the accusations have always been closer to "Can you get me this? Here is how you could go about doing that." That takes it out of the realm of journalism in at least the legal sense.

lokar 2y ago
When you encourage someone else to commit a crime, and then use the results of that crime in your own work you really should not be surprised that law enforcement comes after you.
- akira2501 2y ago
  The work was not for profit and in the public interest. Did he actively encourage people to do things they didn't want to do, or did people actively seek the necessary advice from him? Would Assange's problems been solved a single cut out? "I can't answer that but I can put you in touch with people who can."
  - vkou 2y ago
    > The work was not for profit and in the public interest. Any bit of classified information can be reasonably considered in the interest of someone in the public. Public interest can only mitigate the illegality of what you're doing, it doesn't just magically make the act illegal. > Did he actively encourage people to do things they didn't want to do, or did people actively seek the necessary advice from him? False dichotomy. If you want to rob a bank, and you come and ask me to be the getaway driver, we're both going to hang. It doesn't matter who had the idea for the crime, what matters is that he materially assisted in carrying it out. Now, if you robbed a bank, and just dropped a million dollars on my porch, that would be a different story. That's the defense journalists use when they receive illegally obtained information.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > If you want to rob a bank, and you come and ask me to be the getaway driver, we're both going to hang. It doesn't matter who had the idea for the crime, what matters is that he materially assisted in carrying it out. Flawed analogy. He didn't help them rob the bank. They asked "what is a good way to get away from a bank robbery." He answered "here are some ideas that have worked in past bank robberies." And it's not a false dichotomy. The law considers mens rea to be a very important factor. The law isn't a black and white application of imputed standards to our social order. You can tell this because we allow juries to decide what happens in them.

zgcarter 2y ago

There is a precedent from the Pentagon Papers: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/new-york-times-co-v-united-states/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/new-york-times-co-v-... As the last paragraph points out, not a clear victory for the free press, but the Assange prosecutors know this case very well and you are absolutely right that they want to avoid another one.

alfiedotwtf 2y ago

Hopefully the next Wikileaks will have better OPSEC and will be completely out of reach from ALL governments

mdhb 2y ago
If he went back to even thinking about touching classified material again in the future he would deserve to be jailed just for the stupidity of it alone after this. The takeaway here isn’t “better opsec”.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  So you’re for or against the First Amendment?
  - mdhb 2y ago
    For reading comprehension